see more attention -- i'm less concerned with the signs and more concerned with the design. this is not an issue here because we're going in an existing building. we're not changing the building. but when new things are built, sometimes they kind of stand out by their design more so than the fact that they're a formula retail establishment. >> i think that's an excellent point. in in some cases where you have shopping centers or development, it the signage may be regulated by ccnrs or other restrictionses on the lease for the property so that it's not actually government that is regulating those signs, but [speaker not understood] neighborhood contractual obligation. >> thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second and it was amended and so if i could reiterate that motion to you before you take your vote. the motion is to approve with conditions as modified by the commission to include the following conditions, that sponsor continue to work with staff to address the intensity of the illumination for signs

and an informational presentation to be calendared within two months before the planning commission to review the lighting and signage program for the formula retail financial service facility. >> i thought it actually was to have -- when they have their plans. maybe it will be in two months, but we actually want to see the -- their plans. i don't know if you want to put two months because i don't know -- [multiple voices] >> it could be calendared -- >> their signage plan is put together. >> and one other thing, mr. ionin. i believe commissioner sugaya also said something about the number of signs would be included in the -- >> can't do that. >> can't do that. [multiple voices] >> consider the sign. >> i think that was for future consideration. >> that's fine. >> just for illumination in general, not just illumination for the signs, but the concern is the illumination in general, you want to see that information. so, even lights that don't illuminate the sign will be [inaudible]. >> sure. >> the lighting and signage.

>> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> no. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners moore and fong voting against. commissioners, that will place you under item 7a, b and c for case numbers case no. 2013.0050ctz, 1731 powell street , request for zoning text amendment, height reclassification and conditional use authorization. * >> good afternoon, president

fong, members of the commission, director lam, administrator sanchez. my name is ed reiskin. i'm the director of transportation here in san francisco. i'm happy to be here and grateful for the opportunity to present on this item. for the past two months san francisco mta has been working closely with the community under the leadership of mayor lee and board president and district 3 supervisor david chiu to address some community concerns that have been raised about the central subway project as it relates to the north beach neighborhood. i want to thank the mayor and supervisor chiu for their leadership in this. the supervisor may be joining later, but i want to acknowledge justin true from his office who is here to answer any questions you might have. the item before you today, upon approval, will enable this project to move forward in a way that addresses the community concerns, but also

allows the project which will serve the larger san francisco community to advance as it's currently scheduled. the sud and the conditional use entitlements will allow us to remove the two tunnel boring machines from the pagoda palace site at 1731-41 palace street instead of our previous plan or current plan to remove them from columbus avenue in front of washington square park. the plan was to remove them from the public right-of-way, but in response to community concerns raised with the disruption that would cause to the north beach community, we began looking for alternatives to that plan and looking at ones in particular that would reduce the disruption that would impact the north beach community. we identified four different -- we narrowed our search down to four different options. we went with president chiu to the community in november and

presented those options, presented the pros and conses as we saw them with each. and of those the pagoda palace option removing the tunnel boring machines from the pagoda site as opposed to from the public right-of-way was the one that both had community support and the one that would not inhibit a future project. * the community was supportive of a few different options. the pagoda palace option swills another, leaving the tunnel boring machines in the ground in chinatown. however, what we advanced to our board for recommendation was the pagoda palace option because leaving the tunnel boring machines in the ground anywhere along the alignment would make any future project more difficult. we did present those options to the mta board on december 4th. we had a number of community members speak to the mta board at that meeting in support of

our recommendation to advance the pagoda palace option. those groups included representatives from supervisor chiu from north beach business association, north beach neighbors, russian hill neighbors, spur, and the chinatown community development center. and from that the mta board directed me to work with city staff and the community and the owner of the site to pursue that option. we continued meeting with the community, had a couple of meeting over the course of december and january, including a larger public meeting again with both president chiu and on january 22nd to basically just keep the community apprised of the progress we were making toward the direction that i had received from the mta board. we have since received a number of letters of support from business groups, from community groups including some -- that

represent quite a few people in support of the pagoda palace option. we have heard that during that time also some concerns about some of the technical matters about the project, both construction related and environmental related. but it was a report that was commissioned by a group that opposes the overall project that raised a number of concerns. however, i think the premise upon which their concerns were raised were based on an incomplete understanding of the project both technical and environmental. for example, the report was based on the assumption that we'd be excavating down 75 pete below the surface. we're excavating 42 feet below the surface. * pretty significant difference. * feet i did send you, and i apologize that it was late, but i sent you a memo last night outlining the issues and trying to point

out how each one kind of played out. and you'll hear more in detail to the extent you might following my presentation. we also addressed the environmental review portion that we can also speak to in more detail. but there was a question about the mika portion. this project is federally fundled so it has clearance both from the federal national environmental policy act as well as under c-e-q-a here locally. * funded we have been working with the federal transit administration, which is the main fund eras part of the u.s. department of transportation, and we have an initial concurrence with the pagoda does not retain if any historical integrity and therefore it is not an historical resource. we regardless will not move forward with this project until the final [speaker not understood] process is complete. * so, i just want to assure you of that.

last week this item was on your agenda. supervisor chiu requested a continuance for one week while we worked out the final details of the lease agreement with the owner of the palace pagoda site which i'm happy to report to you that we were able to reach an agreement on just yesterday. that will be subject to approval by my board, the mta board of directors next, next tuesday. the sud which enableses the cu is all contingent on lease approval. i do want to acknowledge that the work to take a project that was approved many years ago, the design for which was complete, the construction is underway. so, to change course at this relatively late date took a tremendous amount of work by a lot of people. so, i just want to acknowledge that with the direction from

sfmta board of directors, the leadership of mayor lee, and supervisor chiu, that we really pulled together a lot of people in the city family, your own planning department staff who were extremely helpful in working with us through this. the city attorney's office played a significant role, and the department of building inspection, mayor's office of economic and work force development, julian gillette in the mayor's office. a number of people really came together with clear direction from the mayor and the board president that this was important and that we could really achieve an outcome here that is a win/win, something that works for the community, but then also works with the larger community that this project is going to serve. so, the item before you today would allow the owner's development project that was approved back in 2010 to move forward after we demolish the building and extract the tunnel boring machines. so, our idea is we would lease the site from him. we would go on, remove the

building, build our excavation shaft, remove the machines, and then turn the site back to him and he would be able to continue, advance the development. this proposal doesn't preclude a future north beach station. there were people who supported the notion of this portion of the project because they want to see a north beach station at the pagoda site. we can't presume whether that will or won't happen, but the project that is not -- has not yet been planned, has not gone through a community or environmental process, let alone design and funded. so, we make no presumptions about a future extension of the central subway, but one of our interests here was to not do something that would preclude or make more difficult any such future phase. what we do have construction timeline that we're working under, any delays to which would bring considerable cost to the city.

* what the tunnel boring machines will be arriving in the city in the next month or two, south of market. it will take them about a year for them to make their way up to north beach. we need to have our retrieval plan and construction in place. so, in other words, the retrieval staff has to be built before the machines arrive in order for the project not to experience delays. so, we had anticipated already being in construction on the retrieval shafts by now. we've been able to use a little bit of time to try to arrive at this new approach that we do see as a win/win. we don't really have -- we're kind of hitting the critical path of the project where delays from this point forward would slow things down. following me, the central subway program director i believe has been in front of you before for a different approvals related to the program. * we'll go into a little bit more detail on some of the technical aspects of the project.

i just in closing want to assure you that to the extent there are community concerns that remain, including by the abutting property owners, we are fully committed to working with them as we have with people all along the alignment throughout the project to make sure that those concerns are adequately addressed. so, i want to thank you for your consideration of this project. the item is before you and i'd be happy to answer questions. otherwise, i'll turn the mic over to my colleague, mr. funge. >> thank you. we may have questions, but later. thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and director lam, commissioners. my name is john funge, i'm the central subway program director. i have a brief technical presentation if we can get it onto the screen. for the past two months sfmta

staff and multiple city agencies have been working very hard to relocate the tvm retrieval shaft off of columbus avenue onto private property known as the pagoda palace. we have pursued this change with strict adherence to environmental regulations and engineering best practices. we are confident that the plan for construction we are about to show you will be environmentally and structurally sound, and that it will minimize construction related inconveniences to the north beach neighborhood. shown here is the 1.7 mile extension of the t-line. the subway portion of the t-line begins underneath the freeway between bryant and harrison. the tunnels are constructed using tunnel boring machines that will be launched underneath the freeway and the portal that is currently under construction. as mr. reiskin mentioned, the tunnel boring machines are fabricated and are scheduled to be arrive in san francisco in early april and is projected that the machines will be

removed in north beach by the second or early third quarter of 2014. these are recent photographs of the launch box construction underneath fourth street happening as we speak imploring similar state-of-the-art technique that will be used in the proposed pagoda property retrieval shaft work site. i'd like to please note the second vertical concrete walls with interior steel bracing and studs and struts. the second concrete walls are installed deep into an impervious soil layer, allowing for the interior excavation of the box to be done without any impact to the surrounding water table or any of the adjacent buildings. this is the original location of the tunnel boring machine retrieval box on columbus avenue that was presented to you and was approved by this body in august of 2008.

now, in an effort to address community concerns about the construction and traffic disruption on columbus avenue, the tbm retrieval shaft has been relocated northwest onto private property commonly known as pagoda palace as shown here. the close up view of the property and pagoda palace showing the retrieval, proposed retrieval shaft country clubtion, and we would like to begin the construction of the tbm retrieval shaft which begins with the demolition of the existing building by next month. so that the retrieval shaft will be completed prior to the arrival of the tunnel boring machines. now, the construction method at the new site will be identical, virtually identical to that planned for the original retrieval shaft on columbus avenue.

inter locking three foot diameter secant piles will be drilled into the ground to form a watertight seal wall around the area to be excavated. the secant piles will extend into material that is impervious to groundwater. * now, during the excavation, the concrete walls will be braced internally using steel struts and wailers. bracing will be installed in several layers as we begin the excavation to stiffen the structure. now, this construction method requires no external shoring, no tie backs, no intrusion into neighboring properties. inside the retrieval shaft, any entrapped water that would be entrapped by the process will be pumped out while the excavation proceeds or is in progress. and we've utilized information from borings performed in 2008 by the property owner's engineering consultant and combined that with boring

reports that were prepared by city consultants to assess the existing soil and groundwater conditions. at both locations, what we found via the soil borings was that the ground consists of several feet of clay, sand above a very dense silty sand. this slide addresses the information in the carp letter prepared at the request of the group that opposes the central subway. i want to make it very clear that the city's plan for excavation of the pagoda palace site differs substantially from the plan described by mr. carp. mr. carp incorrectly describes the depth of the proposed retrieval shaft. misrepresents the soil investigations that have been and will be performed before construction begins, and incorrectly describes the impacts of construction onto nearby properties or the associated effect on the adjacent groundwater table.

in conclusion, we're very confident that the work proposed is structurally sound and statements to the contrary are without merit and should not influence the city's or stakeholders' evaluation of our proposed tbm retrieval plan. that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. we may have questions later. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. my name is kevin guy with planning staff. i'm here to speak to the development project that is associated and up for consideration today and the entitlement actions and the specifics on those. so, the request before you today is for conditional use authorization to allow development on the lot greater than 5,000 square feet, to allow a nonresidential use greater than 2000 square feet, to allow the demolition of a former movie theater, and to allow restaurant use for the type 47 abc lice license. and then the commission would also make recommendations

regarding the proposed reclassification of the site from a 40 foot to a 55 foot height limit and the adoption of a special use district or sud for the site. so, the development project involves the demolition of the existing vacant feeder and the construction of a new five story over basement mixed use building containing up to 18 dwelling units, a restaurant measuring approximately 4700 square feet, and up to 27 off-street parking spaces. and as has been described, following demolition of these existing building and prior to the construction of the new building, the site will be utilized for extraction of the tunnel boring equipment associated with the central subway project. a project was previously approved for this property to rehabilitate the existing feeder and convert the building into a very similar program of uses as a building proposed by this application. the purpose of the sud is to allow the construction of the project that was previously approved in a manner of >> rehabilitation project to resolve areas of conflict with the planning code that would not allow the project to proceed as new construction. and to address several specific

issues regarding the program of uses. so, the sud would address rear yard dwelling unit exposure, off-street parking, building height, ground floor ceiling heights, the allowing of a restaurant use at this site, allowing a nonresidential use exceeding 4,000 square feet, and allowing the reconstruction of the existing blade sign that is on the theater. so, i'd be happy to address any of these sud provisions in more specific detail. i should note that as introduced by the board of supervisors, the sud would only become effective once a lease for the use of this site is authorized by the sfmta and five years from the initial effective date. so, to reiterate the purpose of these actions is to enable construction of the project as previously contemplated and approved by this commission. in the previous approval the commission did find that the project was designed to respect the overall character, massing, scale of the district. and the project was desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood. the newly constructed building would reflect the design of the previous rehabilitation project

and would not exceed the height or roof profile of the existing building. the only minor changes that i would note to the project are to enlarge the restaurant space to include an area that was previously a separate retail space. also subterranean vault that would be a remnant of the extraction of the boring equipment would be retained and used as accessory space for residential units on-site. there are a couple of items that i'd like to pass out to you now. the first is a set of communications in support of the project that were not included in your packet. the other item is an amendment to the draft motion for one of the conditions of approval to do with approval term. essentially as drafted in your draft motion right now there is a five-year approval term for the conditional use. this amendment would sink row nighx the term of the approval to the term of the special use districttion and this change is being requested to coordinate with the terms of the lease that were agreed to.

just recently following publication of the staff report. so, in conclusion staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization and staff recommends that you recommend to the board of supervisors to approve the sud and height reclassification. * this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm brett gladstone, partner in the san francisco firm of hanson bridget. i'm here today speaking on behalf of the project sponsor royal campus. i'd like to introduce some members -- is it 3 minutes? some members of the team and i'd like them to stand up as i introduce them. first of all, my client [speaker not understood] campos. and my co-counsel, jonathan rodriguez. jonathan will be available for

questions on construction issues and lease with the city if you have any. i'll be talking about the planning issues. i'd also like to introduce consultant martin kirkwood and consultant jorge mandragon. first, i'd like to thank the city, particularly scott sanchez and kevin guy, for their hard work on this in the recent weeks, and david chiu, supervisor chiu and his aide, justin true as well. this is the third or fourth time i've appeared in front of the commission in the last 20 years on this project. i represented previous developers in trying to make financable a rehab movie theater with a dinner theater on the second floor. we had to go through conditional use and rezonings. that didn't prove to be economically feasible. silver leathers came before the commission. however, this is the first one

by mr. campos, my client, and i was at the commission in 2009 when you approved this 6 to 1 with dozens of community members supporting it in 2009. unfortunately, as you know in that period, the econ kind of fell apart and financing and so did equity. and when you approved, it was not a good time to get financing and start construction. * economy now the aloe am -- economy has come back, lending is available. the client is ready to go forward and start with all the final permitting when the city claim to the client a few months ago and asked that his construction be delayed by reason of using the site for up to two years for removing the boring equipment. and since then my client has

agreed to delay his construction. and there are some risks. however, it seems like it's what's best for the city and the neighborhood, and was willing to come back before you and is today on essentially the same project. but instead of a demolition -- excuse me. instead of a rehabilitation of the building, it is, of course, a demolition. since the three city officials before me have described the project in great detail, i will not make any further remarks, but i am available for questions as is my co-counsel jonathan rodriguez. thank you very much. >> thank you. opening it up for public comment. i'm going to call a few names. michael barrett, howard wong, aaron peskin, and richard

hanlon. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm michael barrett. i'm happy to be working with save muni and i'm against this project. other reasons i'm against the project is because the tunneling was fine at the old location, which we weren't too excited about. but since that we've done research and development and every major city from budapest to stuttgart has had terrible reaction with tunnel boring machines causing tunnel collapse. that's something that we should definitely consider. now, i'd like to mention that last month, ed reiskin made a proposal saying that i'm happy to report that we continue to

make progress with the pagoda palace plan. the effort to change the retrieval site has involved a significant amount of work on a very tight timeline. the strong support of supervisor chiu, the mayor's office, we have worked closely with several city agencies including the planning department, the city attorney's office, and the department of building inspection to try to make the pagoda palace option a reality. one thing that was left out by mr. reiskin, all of the employees of the mta, were these citizens of san francisco and the business owners in north beach. if anybody were at the meeting in november, the first time the north beach merchants were really notified by the mta or anybody, there was a huge uproar against this project. it should stop in chinatown as

originally planned. there is much less risk of problems with the tunneling. and quite truthfully, commissioners, i don't know how many of you take public transportation, the muni. i take it all the time. coming down today we had outrageous service from muni on a bus on van ness packed with people. in the middle of the trip, two [speaker not understood] from the mta got on to check everybody's id after everybody had paid already. my attitude towards that is why give them tunnels and tunnels when they can't even run the above-ground properly? thank you. howard wong with save muni.com. i will be submitting today a supplemental